Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 11 - Evidence for June 23, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which were referred Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act; and Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 12:33 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bills.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, colleagues. This meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has been called, as agreed by the steering committee and as confirmed at the committee meeting yesterday, to conduct clause-by-clause consideration first of Bill S-6 and then of Bill C-23A. The committee has held hearings and heard from witnesses on both these bills.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[English]
The Chair: It is carried on division.
Senator Baker: Subclause 4(2) amends the English version and not the French version. I see. I was wondering why the English was in the French section.
The Chair: It refers to the English version.
Senator Baker: I suppose it is there because we are modifying the English version to match the French version; it is already in the law?
The Chair: I assume so. I confess I did not research this matter. Maybe we can ask Mr. Giokas to come forward.
John Giokas, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: The French version of the paragraph does not require changes because the wording of the French version does not refer to the test. That is why the English version has been changed.
Senator Baker: I see. The literal translation of the French version takes into account the necessary adaptations. However, in the English, it is "any modifications that the circumstances require." The only change is the change of the word "any" from "such." One would think that, with the next revision of the bill, they would leave out "any" or "such" and make it simple, like the French version. That is the only observation I have. It is a completely different wording from the French version. That is fine, chair.
The Chair: That was a comment, was it?
Senator Baker: That was a comment. When one looks at the English version — "with any modifications that the circumstances require" — and the French counterpart — "taking into account the necessary adaptations" — it seems to me the English version is wordy. Perhaps they should omit the qualifier "any" in the next revision.
The Chair: In my experience, it is often the case that the French version is shorter and clearer. That is not always the case, but often. It is often clearer, anyway.
In any case, we have adopted clause 4. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Carstairs: On division.
The Chair: It is carried on division.
[Translation]
Shall clause 6 carry?
[English]
Senator Baker: Chair, I do not know if there is any explanation, but clause 6 is in reference to the International Transfer of Offenders Act. It changes the 15 years to 25 years for first-degree murder, but it makes no reference to second-degree murder.
It sets the parole ineligibility period at 10 years if someone commits the offence outside the country, whereas, if it were committed inside Canada, it could run from 10 years to 25 years. If it is committed outside of Canada and they spend their time in prison in Canada, then their parole ineligibility is only for a period of 10 years.
First-degree murder is 25 years, and second-degree murder is 10 years. I guess when we take the minimums, that time is exactly what it is today. It seems to me strange that the normal period of time for second-degree murder where somebody has a history of offences of the Criminal Code is usually 22 or 23 years for parole ineligibility. If the same offence is committed outside the country, it is 10 years. As the witnesses said, that is the minimum, together with the 25 years, so that is why it is there.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Giokas: May I add a clarification? The 10 years originally referred to the period of parole eligibility for first- degree murder prior to 1976. Then the 15 years was put in when the faint hope clause was added in 1976. Now we are substituting 25 years because we are eliminating the faint hope clause.
Technically, there is no direct reference to second-degree murder. However, you are correct; the 10 years happens to be the mandatory minimum parole and eligibility period for second-degree murder, so it would be caught.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[English]
Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Carstairs: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[English]
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Carstairs: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Carstairs: On division.
Senator Joyal: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the bill carry?
Senator Joyal: On division.
Senator Carstairs: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No? In that case, colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill unamended to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Carstairs: On division.
The Chair: It is agreed, on division.
We turn now, colleagues, to the matter of Bill C-23A. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23A.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Senator Joyal: Before you move on to call the bill clause by clause, I want to record my abstention on the voting of this bill.
The Chair: On all the votes?
Senator Joyal: On all the calls, yes.
The Chair: The clerk will note the abstention of Senator Joyal on each of these items.
Senator Baker: Chair, I want to be recorded the same way, with the caveat that both these bills, Bill S-6 and Bill C- 23A, have a retrospective application in the law. That is part of the reason why I also want to be recorded as abstaining.
The Chair: Very well.
Senator Carstairs: I will also abstain.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Chaput?
Senator Chaput: I will also abstain from voting.
Senator Carignan: I do not want to abstain from voting, but I would like to point out that Senator Baker said in English "retrospective," but the interpreter translated it as "retroactive."
The Chair: Do you see how important it is to understand both languages?
Senator Carignan: I completely agree with you, and that is why I would like to let the interpreter know that his translation has been excellent. The great thing about the recording is that it enables us to point out a problem. As for what a judge may be thinking, if there is no interpretation involved, we cannot know if there is an error.
The Chair: Many thanks.
[English]
Senator Baker: Chair, Senator Carignan has outlined the difference between retrospective and retroactive, and he used the Quebec Court of Appeal extensively in describing that difference. If someone is interested in the difference between the two, they can go back on the record and read Senator Carignan's explanation.
The Chair: Splendid. Thank you. We are talking for the future generations of this land, Senator Angus.
Colleagues, is it agreed that we have agreed with abstentions from the senators whose names have been noted?
Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed, with the abstentions noted.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry, with the abstentions noted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 2 is carried.
[English]
Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall clause 4 carry, with the abstentions noted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 4 is carried.
[English]
Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall clause 7 carry, with the abstentions noted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 7 is carried.
[English]
Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall clause 9 carry, with the abstentions noted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 9 is carried.
[English]
Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[English]
Shall the schedule carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
[Translation]
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, with the abstentions noted.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it agreed that this bill be reported to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: That concludes our formal business. I will ask you to stay for a brief discussion of future business in camera, colleagues. I wish to thank you all for your work on these two bills, and to thank all the officials who have been available to help us on our way — and, of course, as usual, the staff.
(The committee continued in camera.)